Courtesy of the fine folks at abu muqawama...a very fine blog by the way.
P.M. Maliki...Sec. Gates...Gen. Petraeus...it’s the trifecta of defeatists!
"Appeasement” = “confront”?
This is just more of your “reality based” ass-backwardsness, Mike.
likwid: Don’t you know that lefties are entitled to make up their own definitions? When they’re wrong(which is almost always), they simply redefine the terms that don’t fit their ideology.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
“Appeasement” = “confront”?
No silly...appeasement = dialogue
Don’t you know your history? 
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
So, Mike, kicking the shit out of terrorists until they beg for surrender terms is “appeasement”? Making them grovel on their knees and beg for their lives is “appeasement”? You need to lay off the meth, it is destroying what little mental capacity you had.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Petraeus’s views echoed those expressed by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who this month said that talks with Iran could be useful if the right combination of incentives and pressures could be developed.
They are stealing Obama’s thunder already.
2H9...kicking the snot out of the terrorists is not appeasement. Where on earth would you get that idea? Follow the link, read and learn...ask for help if you need it.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Sorry, Mike. I ain’t pissing away time reading any more leftarded crap. The Iraqis are moving forward, you leftards hate to see it and are doing all you can to bring it to an end.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Alright then.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
MikeAdamson - No silly...appeasement = dialogue
That’s just what the “reality based” community is trying to sell, Mike.
Just because people on your side of the political aisle have distorted yet another word, don’t expect the rest of us who actually are reality based to go along with it.
What you linked to as “appeasement”, has in the second sentence the word of “confront”. They’re not the same thing.
lik...if you are telling me that talking with one’s enemy is not “appeasement” then I agree. If you are saying that merely talking with the enemy is not going to solve all of the problems then I agree. If you’re saying that force must sometimes be used when talking isn’t enough then I agree. If you’re saying that appeasement implies a kind of “buying the enemy off” mentality then I agree.
If you’re saying that diplomatic activity has never been dismissed as “appeasement” then I disagree. That is the object of my “appeasement series”...the notion that talking to the enemy is exactly what Chamberlain did before WWII and is therefore appeasement. It’s not I that distorted another word, it’s others who are guilty of such rhetorical excess.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike, if you don’t mean appeasement in the ordinary sense of giving in to the enemy, you should use another word because all dictionaries give the meaing of appeasement as:
the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace
You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.
If you’re saying that diplomatic activity has never been dismissed as “appeasement” then I disagree.
I’m sure it’s happened, but it is a bit vague to go on about this point without giving concrete examples. Are you talking about, and consequently talking to, those here at this website about such incongruities? We don’t know. You’re just going on about what you see as the bastardization of the word “appeasement”.
Meanwhile, we have a Presidential candidate (that would be Obama) who tells us that he would meet with Iran. According to Barack, war with Iran is off the table. He just wants to talk.
Obama talking about Iran while campaigning in Oregon on 5/19/08:
We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.
“We might not compromise on any issues” and war is off the table = that’s appeasement, Mike.
Now what is your point supposed to be? Just who do you think you’re talking to with your “appeasement series”?
MikeAdamson - If you’re saying that force must sometimes be used when talking isn’t enough then I agree.
I’m happy to see that you agree.
Many of your ideological friends on the left, however, do not agree. They only want to “engage” in talks with our enemies. War is off the table.
Such talks are rightfully derided as appeasement.
You apparently agree.
All of this makes one wonder how you got the target of your “appeasement series” so wrong. This is why I asked above, just who do you think you’re talking to? Goodness, we’re on the same page with this one. You’re going after those on the right with partisan blinders on when you should really be calling out the appeasement for what it is.
This isn’t a game, Mike. This is real life.
Afghanistan = good invasion
Iraq = bad invasion
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
What this demonstrates is that liberals not only do not understand the reality of evil and the nature of our enemies, but they don’t even understand the difference between confrontation and accomodation.
We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.
President Bush
September 17, 2003
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Iraq = bad invasion
Rbb, I’d love to see you say that to the faces of Iraqi men, women and children liberated from Saddam’s terrifying regime. I wouldn’t plan on walking away with any dignity if I was you.
We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.
Rbb, when did Bush ever say Saddam’s was involved and that involvement was the sole reason, or even one reason to invade?
I see that “realitybased"bob has decided to change the subject.
Gee,..I wonder why.
Any time now H will be swooping in to blur the lines of distinction and draw lines where none exist.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 24, 2001
“We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
July, 2001
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
if you are telling me that talking with one’s enemy is not “appeasement” then I agree.
Talking with the enemy without preconditions and making accomodations in an effort to avoid a confrontation is appeasement.
Confronting an enemy from a position of strength with preconditions and without accomodations is not appeasement.
Gee, did anyone else notice the dates of those quotes are prior to 9/11?
Rbb, the paradigm changed after 9/11. The events that led up to war in Iraq were in light of 9/11. You liberals refuse to accept the world we live in and the evil that exists in this world. This is why you liberals are not to be trusted with national security.
HG:
Rbb, when did Bush ever say Saddam’s was involved and that involvement was the sole reason, or even one reason to invade?
The events that led up to war in Iraq were in light of 9/11.
Nutters crack me up.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Rbb,
I see you have trouble understanding what “in light of” means. You think it means Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. The President and many others of us have attempted to explain the paradigm since then to no avail. I don’t think doing it again would help any. But know that your willful ignorance resulted in you taking me out of context. The two quotes are not talking about the same thing.
Not only that, but given your pathetic attempt at conflation, you overlooked the obvious contradiction. The second quote is my own and therefore does not answer the first.
Mike: The only proper way to “talk” to an enemy is to inform them how much time they have to surrender before the bombing starts.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
“We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
July, 2001
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
President Bush, 7/2/03
He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 24, 2001
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
President Bush, 11/1/02
“We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
July, 2001
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 24, 2001
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
"realitybased"bob doesn’t understand the phrase “in light of”. In response to his misunderstanding, he calls those who do understand “Nutters”.
Maybe bob has gay porn on his mind. He’s always going on about “Nutters” as he derails thread after thread.
The only proper way to “talk” to an enemy is to inform them how much time they have to surrender before the bombing starts.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Okay Rbb,
Now notice that none of those quotes say that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Next, remember what changed after 9/11. The relationships with terrorists and terrorism Saddam had, and given his history of WMD’s and his willingness to use them made him an even greater threat after we experienced what terrorists can do on 9/11. Proxy wars or attacks via terrorist organization sponsored by terrorists states have proven to be a legitimate threat after 9/11. What we did was the right move given what we knew then.
...what we knew then.
He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 24, 2001
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Rbb,
Okay, now on to the intelligence issue which is another reason, given the new paradigm, we needed to act.
You know as well as I do that the intelligence that led up to the war was broadly accepted and from many more sources than just the US. You know that even the UN and democrats accepted the intelligence from numerous sources that said Saddam wasn’t cooperating.
I know you all hate Bush, fine, but don’t let your hatred of Bush blind you to the obvious. Do I need to post the countless quotes after 9/11 posted here on numerous occasions from the same officials you quote which accuse Saddam of possessing and pursuing WMDs?
You know as well as I do that the intelligence that led up to the war was broadly accepted and from many more sources than just the US.
This is/was not true.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
This is/was not true.
Rbb,
If not, why not?
And citing intelligence to the contrary doesn’t mean that intelligence was “accepted”. If, as I noted, the “accepted” intelligence pointed to Saddam’s lack of cooperation and pursuit of WMD’s, then you are mistaken.
There were many “unaccepting” voices in both the FBI and CIA as well as many in the House and in the Senate.
If by “accepted” you mean that the current administration believed it and used it to sell the war, you are correct.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Thanks for the link lik. Below is the pertinent information from that link.
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we’ll find them or we’ll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they’re not alone. They’re part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that “we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems.”
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that “we have to find and destroy them.”
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had “stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Finally, there’s former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq’s “offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.” Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors “that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.” That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.
If by “accepted” you mean that the current administration believed it and used it to sell the war, you are correct.
I mean accepted by democrats, the UN, and our allies. Even some who didn’t ally with us shared intelligence with us that confirmed our own concerns about Saddam.
By accepted I mean that intelligence that so many voted and acted upon.
Hilarious!
lik links to a rant by Robert Kagan (PNAC) (brother to Fred) to prove his point that Kagan was correct.
Nutters crack me up.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Typical leftist dishonesty, Bob. Disparage the source without addressing the validity of what’s being said.
No wonder the big kids all delight in picking on you. Poor dear!
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
I’m a “nutter” for recognizing reality.
Whatever, bob. Mr. 52 year old who acts like he’s about 14.
...to prove his point that Kagan was correct.
Now this is a new one. Who brought up Kagan before? Nobody.
Make shit up, rewrite history, call it “reality based”, and label everybody who points out the lies “Nutters”.
“realitybased"bob before he came to this website.
He hasn’t changed his tune at all. He’s still the same old bob that the world came to know and love laugh at.
Rbb,
Were the quotes in the article inaccurate?
No. I agree.
Therefore the claim of numerous intelligence sources widely accepted are true.
This in spite of the author’s kin. This in spite of your silly dig.
A 49 year old realitybasedbob in response to seeing a black woman:
realitybasedbob said:
yezzam massa, I done fetched the wadda ...is you in needs ofs a belly warmer? yezzam massa
Posted on June 29, 2005 04:35 PM
Black women in positions of power scare bob.
bob wanted to derail this thread; now he’s getting what he wanted.
I notice that boob has not listed any of Saddam’s statements on the subject. Why is that, boob?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
2H9,
He never actually does any of the stuff he says he can. He’s all talk and silly pictures.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
My Gawd, is there nothing bushco drops that you nutters won’t swallow?
Come November, God willing, your kind will be out of power for a long, long time.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
God willing,
bob: Don’t name drop folks you don’t know! Heh.
For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.
Frederick W. Kagan
Come November, God willing, your kind will be out of power for a long, long time.
Hey, you can always ‘hope’, but that’s all you’ll get from Obama.
20 of the last 28 years have seen a Republican President. Chances are, it’ll happen again. Don’t invest gov’t with too much power, a Republican president just might use it against you in the future.
But really Rbb, thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate your complete and willful ignorance.
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
“[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)
“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
Senator Barack Obama
Come November, God willing, your kind will be out of power for a long, long time.
A good example of leftie “bipartisanship”. You guys just want to redefine everything.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
bipartisanship
... as in members of differing parties working together for the good of the nation?
"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”
“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator
Pictures of robert108
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=20233363
http://www.janesgallery.com/showpic.php?id=robert1&nr=08&rating=ggggggggggggxxxxxxxxgxxxxxxxxx
This cracks me up! haha
… as in members of differing parties working together for the good of the nation?
Who decides what is “for the good of the nation”?
I guess you missed it, but rbb’s version was eliminating one party to the discussion.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
"Who decides what is “for the good of the nation”? “
Anyone who chooses socialism is disqualified.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
docdave
Mike, if you don’t mean appeasement in the ordinary sense of giving in to the enemy, you should use another word because all dictionaries give the meaing of appeasement as:
the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace
Of course I agree with that definition. When I think of appeasement I think of Chamberlain and the Munich Pact. It’s only in the peculiar world inhabited by some peculiar minds that talking is “the policy of giving in to the demands etc. etc.” Hitler wasn’t appeased by talking...Hitler was appeased by the surrender of the Sudentland and Rhineland in a fruitless effort to avoid war.
Calling discussions with Iran or Hamas “appeasement” is rhetorical overkill intended to draw a false analogy from historical events. The discussion of demands is not “appeasement”, no matter how hard you try to make it so. I don’t see too much being offered to Iran or Hamas in order to avoid conflict so we’re not trying to appease them.
Perverting commonly understood language is a common debating tactic used by those with an insufficient grasp of the complexities of history, language and international relations...IMO of course.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
lik...stating that talk is preferable to war is not appeasement, it’s just common sense. Who wouldn’t rather negotiate solutions rather than fight over them? If Obama said that he’d never go to war with Iran then you might have a point. If you think that there’s nothing to be gained from talking then that’s fine or if you think there’s been enough talking and a show of force is required then I can underastand that.
Just don’t call talking appeasement because it isn’t...okay?
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
lik
You’re going
after those on the right with partisan blinders on when you should really
be calling out the appeasement for what it is.
I’m going after those that appropriate language and misuse analogies for their own purposes. Specifically, I’m going after those who identify negotiation and dialogue as appeasement in a vain attempt to link current events with the period before WWII. I hope that makes my position clearer.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
lik...stating that talk is preferable to war is not appeasement, it’s just common sense.
Depends on the nature of your enemy. If they are using “negotiation” as a means of buying time to build up their strength to attack you, it’s just plain stupid. If Obama wants to offer submission to the terrorists by cutting and running from the ME, it’s appeasement, no matter how you try to spin it.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
Who decides what is “for the good of the nation”?
I guess you missed it, but rbb’s version was eliminating one party to the discussion.
More hate filled rightie lies. I wrote ‘your kind’.
Not your party...although your party has been undermined my your kind.
Whither thou goest, O once proud gop?
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
rbb: You lie, as usual; you want to eliminate one of the parties from the discussion, just like I said. You won’t get your wish. You lefties will not kill the USA, no matter how hard you try.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
party
Entries 1 to 10 of 18.Main Entry:
1par·ty Listen to the pronunciation of 1party
Pronunciation:
\ˈpär-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural parties
Etymology:
Middle English partie part, party, from Anglo-French, from partir to divide — more at part
Date:
14th century1: a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest
2: a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government
3: a person or group participating in an action or affair <a mountain-climbing party> <a party to the transaction>
4: a particular individual : person <an old party approaching 80>
5: a detail of soldiers
6: a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it
— party adjective
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
More hate filled misguide lies from 108.
I DO NOT want to eliminate one party.
Nothing NOTHING could be farther from the truth.
Stop lying 108.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Calling discussions with Iran or Hamas “appeasement” is rhetorical overkill intended to draw a false analogy from historical events.
Wrong. Obama’s announcement of his intention to cut and run from Iraq upon his election is a gesture of appeasement to the terrorists in the ME. It fits the classic definition of appeasement, no matter how you deny and spin.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
More hate filled lies and smears from 108.
Omaba has never said he will cut and run upon his election.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
Let us please stop the charges of lies or hate, I have also charged people in the same manner and it not only does not achieve anything of value, as we will always deny hatred or acts of deliberate deception on our part, but such charges only tend to end debate and stir up unnecessary strife.
We read into the statements of others what they appear to be saying or what they appear to actually believe, we then restate the matter in our own words and if the first person does not accept that interpretation, then they charge the second person with lying, when there was no desire to deliberately say something that was untrue, be deceptive or make a false statement. If the second person does not reflect our true views, all we need do is correct the false impression and move on.
As to hatred, that is an emotion and unless a person uses the word hate, or unless we are mind-readers, we cannot know if hate was involved. Maybe anger can be discerned or dislike or disrespect, but not the absence or presence of hate.
Now rbb, try a little civility and challenge Robert108 as to his conclusions about you based on your true beliefs, and let us all try and leave these words hate and lies out of the debate.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
RBB: I don’t have Obama’s statements on this matter available and I am not feeling very well, haven’t for about three weeks, so I am not in the mood for any research; but I do know Obama has promised the Left to start our military exit from Iraq on day one of his administration and to complete it in a short time frame. You may see that policy one way, but I agree with Robert108 that like a rose by any other name will still smell as sweet; cut-and-run by any other name still smells of cowardice, appeasement and unilateral surrender to an enemy in the field and it makes a mockery of all the lost limbs, broken lives and deaths of our soldiers.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Knee-high-man
You like that flavor of language when it is directed at your opponents. You, in fact, are a practitioner of vitriol.
Sparkie: I admitted past errors in that regard in my comments, but you are too closed minded, ignorant and you lack the basic human dignity to recognize that simple fact and take it at face value. By the way, I deny the character of your charges against me, so that really advanced the debate didn’t it? You are a foolish, foolish man and I know of no one around here that holds you in much respect.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Wow.
That one struck a nerve. Like a little lib who likes to call the shots and wipe his arse with his reciprocal duties.
Sparkie: You lack the intellectual honesty to ever hit any nerve of anyone here, even if you cut the body open and had help sticking it with a pin!
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
I am saddened to read of you infirmity, I wish you well.
What admonishment will you offer to our dear friend 108 or ___________ for their disparaging words? Certainly you have read the comments of others besides me.
Do you have a memory of the offer I made some months ago?
bush made mockery of our brave and heroic military personnel when he sent them to fight a war of choice.
His hands are stained with the blood of our finest.
May God have mercy on his soul.
Now Neiman, try a little civility and challenge Sparkie as to his conclusions about you based on your true beliefs, and let us all try and leave these words hate and lies out of the debate.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
You lie again, rbb; you wish to eliminate the conservatives from the discussion. I would ask you to stop lying, but realize it’s impossible for you to do that. You would then have nothing to say.
Neiman: When scum like rbb calls me a liar, I simply consider the source. He’s just looking in his own mirror, and shouting at the face that he sees.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
Rbb: I don’t want to admonish anyone!I actually admonished myself for my occasional excesses. You made the charges of hate and lies twice above and I simply used that fact as an excuse to appeal to others here to try and avoid such terminology, which only hinders honest and constructive debate.
ONE MORE TIME! The Democrat leadership in the Congress read the same intelligence data, saw the same foreign intelligence data and not only came to the same conclusion as Bush, but very often they used more harsh and direct language in favor of war in Iraq. Blame Bush - Blame the Democrats in Congress back then. While I agree with Bush’ decision about going into Iraq; the fact is we are there, we have paid a high price and cutting-and-running now would be, IMO, just like pissing on the graves of our soldiers and rubbing salt in their physical and emotional wounds. It would also be like spitting in the faces of all those brave Iraqi’s with purple fingers and all those that died before and since the war.
I have a direct stake in defending the honor of our soldiers there!
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
More hate filled lies from the far right hater 108.
Conservatives are welcome at my table.
You are correct though, I do wish to eliminate what ever you are from having anything to do with the country I love dearly, America and her government.
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
rbb: Please answer these questions:
1. When Robert108 and I charge Obama with promising a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq (cut-and-run), why didn’t you just supply direct quotes from Obama wherein he denied that charge or wherein he spoke of a phased withdrawal over time or some other plan? That is the correct answer, suppply quotes from Obama that contradict the charges.
2. Wherein, by what objective facts, did you determine that Robert108 was debating you due to an intense personal dislike for you that could reasonably be defined as hate? Did you read his mind? Do you have an accurate record of mind reading? I have accused him of hatred before, but over time I have seen that he is direct, blunt, even a bit rude at times in getting to the heart of an issue, he goes after the facts and yet there is little if any negative emotions about the person he is debating in his arguements.
3. Please tell us how he knew something you actually said and yet he deliberately, with malice said something opposite that fact to deceive others? If you cannot give us such facts, you are making a false accusation.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
rbb: You lie again; conservatives aren’t “far right”; both the far left and the far right are totalitarians, while conservatives(like me) believe in individual independence and freedom from govt interference.
You need lots of schooling.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
Come November, God willing, your kind will be out of power for a long, long time.
Why do you hate diversity, rbb?
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
Neiman: rbb, like some others, can only deal with disagreement as “hate”; it helps him to keep from admitting that he has been bitchslapped by the truth.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
Omaba has never said he will cut and run upon his election.
Right; as a leftie liar, he calls it “withdrawal”, and then lies about his motives. It’s cutting and running, when you get to the truth, and Ajad knows it. He’s just waiting for Obama to give Iraq to him.
You are such a lying chump.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?
MikeAdamson - Hitler was appeased by the surrender of the Sudentland and Rhineland in a fruitless effort to avoid war.
He wasn’t appeased. It was fruitless.
Offering appeasement does not work with tyrants.
Calling discussions with Iran or Hamas “appeasement” is rhetorical overkill intended to draw a false analogy from historical events.
Iran is run by tyrants and Hamas is a tyrant organization. There are no talks without war on the table. Any talk without war on the table is appeasement.
Offering appeasement does not work with tyrants.
The discussion of demands is not “appeasement”, no matter how hard you try to make it so.
Who is doing that? Who is saying that the discussion of demands is appeasement?
I don’t see too much being offered to Iran or Hamas in order to avoid conflict so we’re not trying to appease them.
That’s because the Republican is in charge.
lik...stating that talk is preferable to war is not appeasement, it’s just common sense.
Nobody is denying that, Mike.
If Obama said that he’d never go to war with Iran then you might have a point.
Now you’re moving the goalposts to “never”? Good grief Mike. Nothing is forever.
If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
Offering appeasement does not work with tyrants.
Just don’t call talking appeasement because it isn’t...okay?
Deal, Mike. I’ve never done that, so it should be no problem to continue never doing that.
Oh, here’s one more from Barack’s site that should send a chill up the spine of all true Americans (most Democrats will not be in this category):
Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Who the FUCK does Obama think he is? Congress aka WE THE PEOPLE have the power to declare war. Barack Obama wants to take that away from us.
Obama is shaping up to be a real anti-American tyrant-appeasing Marxist.
Read another way:
Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress
Heretofore? Barack doesn’t say.
– including Kyl-Lieberman –
Maybe. I see it differently because of so:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
We can bomb Iran. Ultimately, the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment:
gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Barack says no. He wants to talk.
